Cht'hm;mi Cu11,rnmum tmd Bwlo~,. ~000. 3(4):650-657 0 2000 hy Chcl iminn Rc1;N1rch Found:111011 Restoration of and Upland for the Blanding 's Turtle, Emydoidea blandingii

1 1 1 ERCK .K1Vli\T , GRET CHEN STEVE NS , R OBERT BR AUMAN , S VEN HO EGER\ 1 P ETE R J. P ETOK AS ' AND GARRETJ' G. HOL LANDS:i

'H11dso11ia L!d., Bc1rd College. P.O. Box 5000, A1111c111dale. New York l2504-5000 USA / Fax: 845-758-7033: £ -mail: [email protected]/; 1Creative Habitat, 253 Old Tan;wow 11R d .. White Plains. New York 10603 USA; 'ENSR. 155 Otis St., Northborough. Massac:l111setts OJ532 USA

AB STRACT. - Const ructed wetland s and upland nesting a,-eas were com pleted in May 1997 to replace Blandin g's turtle (Emydoidea bla11di11gii ) habitat s lost to a schoo l expa nsion in Dutche ss County, New York. Organic s and vegetation were salvaged and moved 200-700 m to create 1.4 ha of deep - ing,s hrubb y, ground -fed intersperse d with dry, coa rse-textured, sparsely vegeta ted, upland . Deep pools were create d for , and a 1.5 km fence with one-way turtle gates was built betwee n the restorat ion area and the school. During the 1997 nesting , 9 of 11 radiotra cked females used the constructed wetlands and all 11 neste d on the constructed nesting areas, producing 104 live hatchlings. One to 3 adult turtle s used the newly-created wetland s simultaneou sly throu ghout summ er and fall. Occupancy of the new wetland s was greater during the nesting season and subsequent summer of 1998 than in 1997, but there was no document ed presence during winter or early spring. Becau se the long-term progno sis of s is unce rtain, wetland construction should be used to increase habitat for Blanding 's turtle rather than mer ely to compensate on an area-to-area basis for the plann ed destruction of wetlands.

Ki::vWORD S. - Reptilia ; Test uclines; Emyd idae; Emydoidea blandingii; turtle; habitat; landsca pe; soils; wetland restoration; mitiga tion ; nesting; ew York ; USA

Blandin g's turtle (Emydo idea bland ingii) (Reptili a: mitred under federal and state wetland protection Im\'' · Emyd idae) is li sted by the New York State Departm ent of M anagers can potentiall y construct wetlands for replace­ Environm ental Conservation as "'threatened·· in the state. ment. enhancement or increase of avail able habitat, and a~ The occurs in two di sjun ct region. of New York : experim ents to pro be the ecological functi on of habitat~. Dutchess County in the southeast, and Jeff erson and St. Thi s opportunit y must be tempered w ith cauti on: wet­ L awr ence counties in rhe north. M ost Blandin g·s turtl e land are compl ex , as are turtl e , and wetl ands in Dut chess County have been altered by drain ­ arti ficia l repli cati on of all of thei r key characteri stic , age, channeli zati on. dredging. impoundmen1. parti al fi Ii­ may not be possi ble. Nevertheless, sciemifi c studies i ng, du 111pin g. clearin g of periph eral vcgetat ion. agric u 1- conducted befo re and aft er habit at constructio n can pro­ ture. water poll uti on. or th e adjacent co nstructi on of vide inf ormati on about the feasibilit y. effec ti vene. ~­ homes. businesses, schools, and parking lots. Dut chess eff iciency . and costs or resto rat ion for specifi c goals and County has a rapidl y grow ing hum an popul ation and target species. intensive development acti viti es, in marked co ntrast to Thi s paper summarizes the design of a habitat construc­ northern New Y ork where habitat s have not undergone tion projec t for the Blanding·s lllrtl c. and 27 months of pre­ severe alt erati on (PJP. pers. obs.) and much habitat is in and post-construction monitoring of turtles at the site. We nature reser ves. Th e rapid land use change and fr agmen­ incl ude info rmation about design and construction of habi­ tati on of habit ats and land holdings in Dut chess County tats because or w idespread interest in restoring or enhancing present a serious stress to a specie~ that requir es habit at habitats. We use ··restoration" in the broadest sense to co mpl exes of at least one to several square ki lometer), incl ude constructi on or alteration of habitat intended to (Ki viat. 1997) . impro ve its qualit y or quantity. Loss and degradation of wetlands threaten many wrcle (Kl emens. I 989; Ernst er al., 1994) . ln the SlTE DESCRIPTION cotermin ous United States. more than half of the pre-Euro­ pean wetland area has been lost in historical (Mi tsch The restoration site lies between a publi c school and a and Gosselink . 1993) . Thus. there is less total area of habitat state park on land that was farmed until around 1950 (Fi g. I ). for many species, and remaining wetlands may be farther There are approxim ately 6 ha of pre-existing wetl ands apart or farther from suitable nesting areas. Yeti n the past 50 suitable for Bl anding' s tu11le use. and 1.4 ha of constructed years. many artifi cial wetlands have been created - for wetlands built in 1996-97 . A " donor" wetl and (0.7 ha) water bird habitat, waste treatment, fl ood storage, and re­ prov ided much of the soils and vegetation for the constructed centl y for compensatory ·'miti gation·· of wetland loss per- wetlands. Al l the wetlands are underlain by organic sedi - K1v1ATET AL.- Blanding's Turtle Habitat Restoration 65 1

A B

Stalo Parl< a P1e-extstlngWellands ~ Con5lructedWfltlands t@ Cons.tructedNtts\mQ A rnas

~NeolJnl!Benns

[Z]rurtleBarrier

~00 • Ofought Re(u,ge Pool metere

State PBtl< StatePel1c

All\letic Fields Alhlollc Fields

Figure l. Maps of 1996 pre-restoration (A) and 1997 post-restoration (B) features. A I. A2. B = constructed wetlands: CS= Corner , ~CP = North Campus . SE= Southe,L~tSwamp; D = donor wetland. (Drawn by Kathleen A. Schmidt). menL~.The two pre-existing wetlands favored by Blanding·~ down to the microhabital scale, appear to maximize warm­ tunles are: ( 1) Corner Swamp. 4.0 ha, with a central red ing in spring (Kiviat. 1997) . maple (Acer rubr11111)swam p and peripheral areas with The spring and summer of 1996were very wet. Most of huttonbush (Ceplwlc1111l111soccidental is), purple loosestrife the pre-existing wetlands retained water all year. In I 997, 1Lythrum sali caria), and a deeper moat; and (2) Southeast there was a severe drought. wetlands drew down rapidly in Swamp, 0.6 ha, dominated by purple loosestrife, tussock late spring, and by August water sufficient for adult ~edge (Carex stricta). and shrubs of several species. South­ Blanding·s tu11le use (>25 cm deep) remained only in east Swamp was a shallow red maple swamp not known to constructed wetland A 1, the dredged pool in North Campus be used by Blanding' s turtles prior to 1986 when it was Pond (Fig. I B), and in artificial in the park north of permanently flooded due to accidentally blocked drainage Corner Swamp. Spring and summer 1998 were much wetter (EK, pers. obs.). The turtles began using the wetland soon than in I 997. and water leve l~ in all wetlands remained high after this event. into July; water levels fell rapidly in late July and early The environment around the site is rural in transition to August but all wetlands retained sufficient water for adult suburban. and there are two major highways nearby. Dutchess turtles through August. Turtles survived drying up of wet­ County lies east of the Hudson River between New York lands by migrating to permanent water, burrowing in the City and Albany. The western two-third~ of the county sedimentso fthed ried-up wetland.or hiding in dense vegeta­ supports at least 11s mall populations of Blanding's turtle in tion or leaf litter on uplands. complexes of small wetlands with nearby uplands that have gravelly loam soils derived from glacial out wash. The veg­ RESTORATION DESIGN etation of the wetlands used by the turtles includes a promi­ AND IMPLEMENTATION nent shrub component. little tree canopy cover, and little cover by graminoid (Fig. 2). There are also organic Res;orat io11Plan. - The Arlington Central School sedimems and fluctuating water levels (0- 1.2 m deep). District (ACSD) planned to expand its buildings, parking Environmental characteristics. from the scale lots, and athletic rields. Neighboring land use limited op- 652 CHELONtAN CONSERVATION AND BI OLOGY, Volume 3, N11111ber 4 - 2000

in sp rin g. dra wdow n in late summ er. and shrub -do m i­ OTHERBRYOPHYTE ~'•===i====~-- ---7 SPHAGNUM ______, nated we tla nd vege tatio n (Fi g. 2) . Mo nit o rin g we lls we re

NYMl>HAE.1O______, drill ed in loca ti ons of propose d we tland co nstru cti o n and in adj ace nt pr e-ex istin g we tl and . a nd staff ga uges we re LOWFORB '"L==::J------< in sta lled in the wet land s. We lls a nd ga uges we re mo ni­ LOWGRAMINOIO ------t tored fo r seasona l grou ndwa ter and sur face wa ter leve ls . PURPLE lOOSESTRJFE I o,C======}------< and to esta bli sh rec harge-d isc harge relatio nships . G rad­ SHRUB 0 ing plans fo r co nstru cted we tla nds we re base d o n ob­ TRANSGRESSIVE .------< I ,.., M1n se rved groun dwate r e levatio ns. T he gradin g pl ans were TREE~••~=-=_=_=_=_=_=_=_=_=_=_=_}-_- _- _- _- _- _- _-_-_-_- - --~ = ~~: re fined d urin g co nstru ctio n by furt he r obse rva tio ns of 0 2 3 4 0 Median gro und wate r and so il in dica tors of the range o f water Cover rank tabl e flu ct ua tion. Figure 2. Veget,LLion of25 Blanding"s turtle wetlands in Dutchess Beca use of the loca l loss of habita t, we wa nted to create County. In each wetland. each vegetation component ll'-aXis)was new hab itats that Bland ing·s turtl es co uld use immediate !). ranked from Oto 4 (x-axis), according to proportion of the wetland withou t the lag of decades or longer be fore a co nstructed covered: 0 = 0-6.25 %. I = 6.25- 12.5%. 2 = 12.5-25%, 3 = 25- 50%. 4 = 50-!00 %. Nymphaeicls arc water-lilies and similar wet land would deve lop mature shru bby vege tation and floating-leaved plams; graminoids arc grass-like herbs. principally orga nic sed iments. In I 996. we de termin ed that the donor grasses, sedges. cattails. and rushes: forbs are broad-leaved herbs: wet land was used by j uvenile Bl and ing ·s turtl es. as we ll a~ purple loosestrife is Lyrllru111sa/icaria: transgressives are seedling and sapling-sizet rees. Medians and boxes farther to the right indicate nesting females . We des igned the co n tructed wetland s to greater importance in the vegetation. (Data from Kiviat. 1997.) provi de shallow, shrubb y, hummocky- tussoc ky wetland with sma ll poo ls for juve niles, dee per and large r seaso na l pool s tio ns for ex pansion. An adjo ining horse farm w ith ba rns. a for ad ults, and three deep pe rm ane nt poo ls. The new dro ught race track . and a sma ll grave l mine, had suffi cient ac reage for refuge poo l. 1.5 m deep . in pre-ex istin g Nrn1h Campus Pond the sc hoo l"s nee ds. but also co ntained the 0. 7 ha do nor would a lso prov ide per manent standi ng water. All wetlands wet land that was part of a know n Bland ing's turtle habit at would have a surface orga nic sedim ent laye r 15-40 cm deep . co mpl ex. Thi s wetland was propose d to be filled fo r sc hoo l All new hab itats were within the pre-ex isting habit at com­ ex pansion. A lthough the New York State Department of plex of the loca l Blandin g's turtl e po pulation. Environmental Co nse rvation had neve r issued a permit to Th e banks of the co nstructed we tlands were des igned to alter a know n Blanding's turtle wetland, the age ncy agreed deve lop a woo ded bo rder for a visual and auditory buffer for to co nsider the pro posa l if AC SD wo uld des ig n new wet ­ the turtles and to moderate the we tland microc limate( Kiviat. land s equ al to tw ice the area of the dono r wetland and 1997). Ground cove r o n the ba nks would preve nt so il ero­ suitab le for Blandin g's turtl es . sion but remain sparse enough that the banks co uld be used There has bee n a hig h inc idence of functio nal failure of for nes ting befo re a tree ca nopy deve loped. We spec ifica lly co nstru cted wet land s (Larso n and Neill , 1987: D' Ava nzo. des ig ned 0.57 ha o f nes tin g habit at a t fo ur loca tio ns. 1990). Thu s, co nstruction of wetlands to mitiga te the loss o f Nes tin g habit ats we re built with a so uth e rn o r so utheas t­ habitat for rare spec ies is risky . We nonethe less ag ree d to ern exp os ur e . o n be rm s and flats w ith s lopes of 0-20° . des ign and monitor a hab itat co nstru ctio n proj ect beca use: us ing loca l grave lly loa m so il or sa nd sa lvage d fro m the ( I) the donor wet land was in a haza rdo us loca tion in relation racet rac k. Th e nes ti ng areas (Fig . I B) we re des ig ned LO to the race track, schoo l parking lot, and roads w ith heavy deve lo p sparse . tu fted. low herb aceo us vege tat io n int e r­ tra ffic; (2) much prior loss and alterati on o fBl anding's turtle spe rsed with ba re m ineral soi l. Nes tin g ar eas we re to be wetland s had occ tm-ed near by: and (3) the proj ec t prese nted mowe d annu a lly in fall or ea rly sprin g whe n turtles are an unu sual opp ortunit y to stud y Blandin g·s turtles and their unli ke ly to be o n land. habitat. and to deve lop tec hn ology that co uld be adap ted to lmpleme111arion. - To create a n immed iate ly func­ ex pand and res tore hab itats elsew here. We ide ntified key tio nal habit at, we used the ··who le sod·' salvage method eleme nts in the crea tio n of habitats for Bl andin g's turtle as: deve loped by Munr o ( 1994). We sa lvage d orga nic sedi ­ ( I) gro und waterdi scharge, (2) orga nic sed iments. (3) shrubb y ment!>a nd vege tation fro m the do nor we tland incl udin g wet land vege tation. and (4) upland nes ting areas. Du e to the mature sedge (C. srricra) tussocks. woody humm oc ks (e l­ requir ements of the co nstruct ion sc hedul e, we had o nly five evate d roo t crow ns), mature shrubs. and trees up to 12 cm months (April - August 1996) to co llect da ta and des ign the dbh (di ameter at breast height. measured 1.4 m from base) res tora tion proj ec t. and 6 m tall. before the wet land was ti lled for sc hoo l Resrora1io11Ta rgets. - Prim ary hab itats of Blandi ng's constr uction. Using a custom-made stee l spatul a mounted tuttl e in Dutchess County are assoc iate d w ith gro undwa ter on an excava tor. whole sod of 1.2 x 3 m , incl udin g all disc harge in dep ress ional we t lands occ upy ing ·'ke ttles" (ho l­ vege tation and a 38 cm deep layer of orga nic sedimen ts, lows form ed when sedim ents were depos ited around re­ were c ut from the donor wet land and tra nsferred to new ly sidual ice blocks) in perm eab leg lac iofluvial out was h depos­ excava ted basi n,-200-700 m away (Fig. 3) . All underlying its. The res toratio n goa l was to create depressio nal wetlands orga nic mate rial was also sa lvaged and used to fill ga ps fed primaril y by gro und water discha rge, wit h dee p flood ing betwee n sods and line pools wi th 20-40 cm of orga nic KivIATET AL . - Blanding's Turtle Habitat Restoration 653

Figure 3. Blanding's turtle habitat restoration, Dutchess County, New York. (A) Sod removal from the donor wetland, December 1996; (B) and (C) Sod placement in constructed wetlands, November and December 1996; (D) Completed constructed wetland, September 1997. (Photos by EK, Hudsonia, Ltd.) sediment. Stumps and logs of larger trees were salvaged side and 25 cm high curbs on the restoration side. Two curb from the donor wetland and from upland construction areas, designs alternated; quarter-round PVC (polyvinyl chloride) including a fence row and a wooded edge, to provide basking pipe (Fig. 4A), and recycled plastic lumber in an inverted L­ and shelter sites in the new wetlands. shape with the top forming a 5 cm overhang (Fig. 4B). We Wetland banks were planted with nursery stock of had tested prototype curbs with a temporarily captive adult native trees and shrubs. To inhibit weeds on potential turtle female Blanding' s turtle and observed that the turtle could nesting areas and in the wetlands, no fertilizers were used. pass over the curb in one direction (down the curb) but not The soils in each planting hole, however, were mixed with the other (up the curb). compost and mycorrhizal inoculants. The soils between Cost Analysis. - The costs associated with wetland planted shrubs and trees were loosened and seeded with construction are difficult to characterize, because each project native grasses and forbs adapted to low nutrient conditions. has its own unique set of site-specific issues related to site The nesting areas were created by removing topsoil, grad­ preparation, excavation, placement of , landscaping, and ing, loosening to a depth of 15 cm, seeding with grasses and drainage, as well as other factors (Kent, 1994). The costs of forbs, and mulching with blown straw. Four nesting berms designing and implementing a conservation plan for (ca. 5 m wide x 25 m long x 1 m high) were built of gravelly Blanding's turtles affected by the expansion of a landfill loam topped with a 20 cm layer of sand. Berm slopes and operation in southern Wisconsin were estimated at $1 .4 summits were seeded similarly to the wetland banks. million over a 10-year period (G. Casper, pers. comm.). A 1.5 km long fence was built along two sides of the Extensive upland restoration, construction of experimental restoration area (Fig. lB) to reduce turtle movement from nesting mounds, installation of turtle exclusion fencing, the restoration area towards the parking lots and highway, habitat maintenance, and annual turtle assessment surveys and to discourage human entry into the restoration area. The were included in this cost estimate. These costs paralleled fence was composed of 1.2 m high chain link with 0.6 m high the cost of the ACSD construction project, which was $1.6 aluminum sheeting attached to the bottom on the restoration million over a 3-year period, excluding engineers', archi­ side and buried 0.3 m in the soil. The fence had one-way tects', and lawyers' fees. The ACSD costs covered the turtle gates at 30 m intervals, with earth ramps on the school design and physical construction, including earth moving, 654 CHELONIAN CONSERVATION AND BIOLOGY, Volume 3, Number 4 - 2000

with hardware cloth (13 mm mesh) cages with the bases buried in the soil. Cages were visited each morning begin­ ning 15 August 1997 and 3 August 1998. Hatchlings were measured and released in shallow, densely-vegetated por­ tions of nearby wetlands. On 28 September 1997, we exca­ vated all nests, released live hatchlings, and counted all unhatched eggs and dead hatchlings remaining in the soil.

RESULTS OF THE TURTLE STUDY

In 1996 (before wetland construction), adult Blanding' s turtles concentrated their activities in Comer Swamp and Southeast Swamp (Figs. 1, 5). We located two Blanding's nests on the edges of the racetrack. A third nest of either Blanding's turtle or wood turtle (Clemmys insculpta) dis­ covered at the end of the summer had been dug in a compost pile near the racetrack and apparently produced no live hatchlings. Five additional radiotracked females did not develop palpable, shelled eggs, probably due to the very cold, late spring. A temporary exclusion fence was removed in late May 1997, allowing turtles into the newly constructed habitats. In the remainder of 1997, 10 of 16 radiotracked turtles (9 females and 1 male) used the constructed wetlands (Fig. 5). Fifty-six percent of radio-locations in these wetlands were associated with the nesting season 3- 21 June. Females used constructed wetlands while migrating to nesting areas and Figure 4. Two types of one-way gates in the turtle barrier (Photos by EK, Hudsonia, Ltd., and RB). between nesting excursions, and all but one female returned to the pre-existing wetland in which each had been resident sod placement, plantings on banks, and fencing, as well as before the nesting season. monitoring costs for a 2-year period (1996-97). This dollar All 11 radiotracked females nested on the restoration figure is based on the original, contracted amount, and does area in 1997. Nests were dug on the constructed nesting not include modifications to the contract. habitats and in disturbed soils of the banks of wetlands A 1, A2, and B (Fig. lB). No female nested on top of a nesting METHODS berm, perhaps because the sandy elevated soil was too dry OF THE TURTLE STUDY during the drought. Most females walked back and forth along the turtle barrier, then nested near the barrier (median We trapped turtles for approximately 1 month in each distance from the barrier was 5.5 m and maximum distance year ( 1996-98) using commercial hoop nets (Ny Ion Net Co., was 36 m). The 1997 nests produced 104 live hatchlings Memphis, Tennessee). Individuals> 149 mm carapace length (mean= 9.45 per nest). (CL) were marked with serially-numbered 13 mm diameter Two females and 1 male used the constructed wetlands plastic disks epoxied to the rear portion of the carapace, and in summer and fall 1997 (Fig. 5). Many of these radio­ individuals 75- 149 mm CL were file-notched in marginal locations were in wetland Al (Fig. lB) which held standing scutes. We radiotracked approximately 10 females and 5 water throughout the drought. One female used the newly males with transmitters in the range of 150.8-151.7 MHz dredged pool in North Campus Pond during the drought. In (Johnson Telemetry, Eldorado Springs, Missouri) epoxied winter 1997- 98, 6 radiotracked adults overwintered in Cor­ to the rear portion of the carapace, and CE-12 receivers with ner Swamp and Southeast Swamp (Fig. lB). Other adults 3-element directional Yagi antennas (Custom Electronics, overwintered in a small water-supply pond in the park north Urbana, Illinois). Turtles were radio-located daily in May­ of the restoration area where they had spent much of the 1997 June, every 3-5 days in July and August, and at 1-4 week drought (these turtles moved into a small intermittent wood­ intervals in September-April. We were unable to maintain land pool during unusually warm weather in February 1998, continuous records for each individual due to signal attenu­ then back to Comer Swamp and Southeast Swamp). No ation in the wetlands, transmitter failure, and excursions of Blanding' s turtle used the constructed wetlands in 1998 until turtles out of the local area. the nesting season began on 25 May. During the nesting season, females were radiotracked In 1998, we located 7 nests on the restoration area, daily and followed visually to locate nests. We covered nests including one on top of a nesting berm. Four additional K1v1ATET AL.- Blanding·s Turtle Habitat Restoration 655

season. Five female and 2 males used the constructed wet­ 70 A. May: landsafterthenestingseason (July. Fig. 5). with2-7 radiotracked 60 - 1996 adults in the consu·ucted wetland on any one date. CJ 1997 ~ 1998 DISCUSSIOi'i

Habitat restoration for rare pecies is increasingly pro­ posed either to expand exi ting habitats. or a mitigation for 20 • planned destruction of habitat (e.g .. Zedler. 1996). The ·o habitat restoration project we describe wa conducted to mitigate the filling of a wetland for expansion of a public o-- '-'--"'- cs SE NCP OTHER A1 A2 B facility. Blanding' turtles require habitat for residence. nesting, drought refuge, and overwintering ( Kiviat, 1997). The constructed wetlands, drought refuge pools, constructed 70 • B. June: nesting areas, and one-way barrier fence at our study ite - 1996 D 1997 served their intended functions reasonably well during the " rs::::!1998 .?50 first two growing after construction. This project, however. raises crucial questions about manipulative man­ i •o agement of habitats for rare freshwater turtles: (I) what i 30 kinds of habitat restoration projects are feasible and effec­ 5 tive?; (2) how can restoration projects be designed and .- 20 carried out with maximal benefit to the target species, and 10 minimal negative impacts on other components of the land­

0 scape?; and (3) in which land use situations are habitat cs SE NCP OTHER A1 A2 B restoration projects for turtles ecologically justified? Blanding's turtles are known to use human-disturbed 70 C. July: areas for nesting, including residential yards and parking

60 areas (Emrich. 1991: Herman et al., 1995), plowed fields - 1996 D 1997 (Linck et al., 1989), and vegetable gardens (Petokas, I 986). IS:Si1998 There have been other attempts to manipulate nesting habitat for Blanding's turtles. A project at another Dutche, s County site included removal of forest vegetation and tilling or bulldozing soils. After several years of experimentation, Blanding's turtles used a constructed habitat for rwo years. 10 bur not in 1998 (Emrich. 1991: C. Harmon and A. Breisch.

0 pers. comm.). A Blanding ·s lllrtle ne ting area wa created cs SE NCP OTHER Al A2 B inadvertently in Massachu erts b~ bulldozing in 19-1I : re­ <-·-- Pre .. xlstJng wetland • ···-- > <- Constructed wetl1nd1 -> cemly. burning and di. king ha\"e been u ed experimemall~ Figure 5. Radio-locations of adult Blanding· turtles in pre­ to manage encroaching, egecation at thi:, ,ite '8.0. Butler. existing wetlands and constructed wetlands 1996-98 . Number~o n pers. co111111.l. \T e, ting mound~ 11ere built to mi1igate the they -axis are percentages of total radio-locations for a month-year­ .\~tland combination. CS =Corner Swamp. SE= Southeast $\\"amp. impact~of a landfiII expansion 111\\ 'i,;con,in. hu1Blanding·~ \'C P= North Campus Pond.* indicates wetland did not exist orwa. lllrtle did not nes1 on them ( Ca~per. 1999) . not accessible to turtles. Ob en ation$b~ u and other, I Emrich. 1991:C. Hanno n and A. Brei. ch.pers. comm . 1. indicate that female Blanding· radiotracked females nested but escaped detection clue to turtle may tr) to return to trauitional ne,ting area~ and are malfunctioning transmitters and a severe thunderstorm. Two likely 10 circunll'elll fence~. In our \llld~. all female:. we females circumvented the barrier, twice each, and were were able to trad, e,·emuall~ nested on the constructed brought back to the restoration area where they eventually habitats. However. ,o me of these female tried to walk nested. A different female was found on the school side of around the fence for 2-3 days before nesting. and we the barrier during the 1997nesting season and was released returned two errant females twice each before they ne ted on on the restoration area where she then nested. She overwin­ the restoration area. In some ituation!>it may be desirable Lo tered in Corner Swamp, bypassed the barrier in spring 1998 fence in an entire habitat complex despite the high C05t. The and moved to a woodland pool 750 m east of constructed best measure of the success of ow·consm1cted nesting habitats wetland A2. During the 1998 nesting season she returned is the substanLialproducti on of live hatch lings in 1997. through a turtle gate onto the restoration area, nested. and once Blanding·s turtles used wetlands and pools built for again bypassed the barrier and returned to the woodland pool. trout culture or waterfowl in Minnesota (Dorff, 1995). Ten females used the constructed wetlands during the nesting Blanding's turtles have also u ed wetlands impounded acci- 656 CHELONIAN CoNSERVATIO 1 AND BI OLOGY, Volume 3, Number4- 2000 dentally or for waterfowl management in Dutchess County Cornell University loosestrife biocontrol program (Malecki (EK, pers. obs.). Former wetland habitat for Blanding 's et al., 1993). Ramps and curbs of the fence were cha llenging turtle has been restored in Nova Scot ia by remo ving the dam 10 design and build; post-construc tion erosion and settling of of a large lake (T. Herman, pers. comm.). Wetland habitat in soil has created crevices around the curbs that could entrap Minne sota was restored for Blanding 's turtle s by deepening hatchling turtles. Hydrological data collected in a very wet existing wetlands or breaking drainage tiles (M. Linck and pre-construct ion year were atypical of the site. Furthermore, J .J. Moriruty ,pers. comm.). TnIllino is, gray dogwood ( Cornus a single seaso n of study of the env ironment and turtles was racemosa) and non-native hrubs (Rham11us) were cleared insufficient to represent the system. This problem was partl y to improve wetland habitat for Blandin g's turtles; some offset by the existence of limited data on the turtles and turtles also used ornamental ponds dredged by landowners wetland vegetation collected by us in previous, unrelated in wetland edges (D.R. Ludwig ,pe rs. comm.). Some oft he e studies. More extensive and detailed pre-design data on phenomena provided precedent s for our experiments in hydrology , soils, and tu1tles would have improved the project. wetland and upland habita t construction. We know of no We were also unable to find and track small j uvenile turtle . other instance, however, of wetlands designed and con­ and thus we could do little to design for. or monitor , this structed specifically to serve as Blanding 's turtle habitat. component. During the nesting season, female Blanding 's turtles Wetland habitats of Bland ing's turtle s are composed of use a wide variety of aquatic and terrestrial habitat s for cover soil, water, microbes , living and dead mater ial, and between nesting excursions. 1n New York, we have seen other anima.ls. We cannot precisely predict the trajectory of females use wetland pools, artificial ponds, and upland development of constructed wetland ecosystems and their brush piles. At the restoration site, females occasionally capability to support the hydro logic, thermal, dietary , and used wetlands during the nesting migration that were rarely other requirem ents of Bland ing's turtles. Information on 1he used otherwise. The behavioral plasticity of nesting fema les, long-term development of the constructed habitats and their and their semi-confinement by the fence, may explain their use by turtle s will help ecologists and managers who are adopt ion of the constructed wetland habitat s in our study. constructing or manipulating habitats for this species else­ Their nest site selection, however, apparently reflects a where in its range. Much remains to be learned about how behavioral compromise between fidelity to traditional nest­ Blanding 's turtles (and other species of freshwater turtles) ing areas and the ability to switch nesting areas under will respond to intentiona l restoration of habitats. changed conditions. We therefore recommend that: (I) restoration be con­ Adult Blanding" s turtles take refuge in natural and ducted to provide addit ional habitat rather than to mitigate artificial pools and ponds during summer . In our intentional destruction of habitat; (2) habitat construction study, during the 1997 drought adults of both sexes used the projects be located within or adjoin ing existing Blanding· s deep pools in constructed wetland A I as well as the con­ turtle habitat complexes; and (3) habitat construction use structed drought refuge pool in North Campu s Pond (Fig. areas with soils and hydro logy locally known to be suitab le I B). More encouraging is the moderate use of the con­ for Blanding's turtle habitats. Different constructed habitat structed wetlands by adults of both sexes during non-drought types apperu· differentially accep table to Blanding's turtles. periods in summer 1998. In winter 1997-98 and spring 1998 Pools or ponds for drought refuge and wetlands for use by (pre-nesting season), however, the radiotracked turtles only females during the nesting season may be the simplest and used the pre-existing wetlands. Possibly the constructed most acceptable habitats. Wetlands for summer use may be wetlands were them1ally unsuitable in winter and sp1ingor had expensive to build but moderately acceptab le to the turtles. insufficient prey in spring. Blanding ' s turtles may be more We cannot yet rate the acceptability of wetlands for use in selective during these appru·ently more ctitical seasons. winter or early spring, or for juveni le turtles. Although to We encountered problem s likely to occur in other date there have been several experiments with the creation of habitat consm1ction project s. Unanticipated subsurface con­ nesting areas, the responses of Blanding 's turtles to these ditions (e.g., marl beneath organic wetland , fine habitat s have been unpredictable. materials beneath upland gravelly loams) complica ted habi­ tat construction. It is difficult to achieve substrate contours A CKNOW LEDGMENTS and a water level regime suitable for the desired plants and , because 10- 15 cm vertica l difference can make a We are grateful to the following individual s and orga­ wetland suitable or unsuitable for some species . The donor nizations: Carla Abrams , Gale Belinky , Colleen Brandes, wetland contributed plants and seeds of an invasive species Todd Castoe, Ashley Curtis , Durae Daniels, Amy Foster , (purple loosestrife) to the constructed wetlands. It is unclear Douglas Gaugler, Stephanie Matteson, Karen Moore, Maribel whether purple loosestrife is harmful or beneficial to Pregnall. Michael Rubbo , Saman tha Searcy , James Siesfeld, Blanding 's turtles ; nonetheless, to avoid loosestrife compe­ John Sullivan, Stacey Thew, Kate Wallen , and students of tition with plantings we avoided salvaging the densest con­ the Arlington Central School District, for field assistance, centrations of loosestrife, hand-pulled loosest rife seed lings measurements, data management and analysis, plant propa­ in se lected peripheral areas of the constructed wetlands, and gation, and many other tasks ; staff, consultants, and contrac­ introduced leaf-feeding beetles (Galerucella spp.) from the tors of the District, for collaboration in the design and for K1v1AT ET AL. - Blanding 's Turtle Habitat Restorat ion 657 hJb icat construction ; Bernd Blossey , Cornell University: Al lion Press. 578 pp. Breisch, Mike Kallaji , Ted Kerpez , New York State Depart­ HERMAN,T.B .. PowER, T.D., ANDEATON. B.R. 1995. Starus of Blanding·s turtles,E111ydoideablc111di11gii, in Nova Scotia, Canada. 'lk 'nt of Environmental Conservation; Jim Gell and Ken Canadian Field-Naturalist I09(2): 182-191. Lutters, New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and KENT,D.M. 1994. Applied Wetlands Science and Technology. Boca Historic Preservation; Krista Munger , Kathy Kelly, and Raton, Flo,ida: Lewis Publishers. 436 pp. Chris Harmon , Lower Hudson Chapter , The Nature Conser­ KIVIAT.E. 1997. Blanding's turtle habitat requirements and implica­ \ ancy : and the Bard College Graduate Schoo l of Env iron­ tions for conservation in Dutchess County. New York. In: Van menta l Studies. Studies were conducted under an Endan­ Abbema. J. (Ed.). Proceedings: Conservation, Restoration, and ~eredff hreate ned Species permit from the New York State Management of Tortoises and Turtles-An lmemational Confer­ Depart ment of Environmental Conservation. Wet land per­ ence. N.Y. Tunic and Tonoise Society. pp. 377-382. mit were issued to the Arlington Central School District by KLEMENS. M. W. 1989. The mechoclology of conservation. In: the U.S. Army Corps of Engi neers and the New York State Swingland. l.R. and Klemens, M.W. (Eds.). The Conservation Biology of Tortoises. 0cc. Pap. IUCN Spec. Surv. Comm. 5: 1-4. Depart mento fE nvironmenta l Conservation. We thank Caro l LARSON,J.S. ANDNEILL, C. (Eds.). 1987. Mitigating Freshwater Dorff Hall, M ichael W. Klemen s, Peter C.H. Pritcha rd, and Wetland Alterations in the Glaciated Northeastern United Scates: Anders G.J. Rhodin for editorial review. Our work was an Assessment of the Science Base. Amherst, MA: Proceedingsof :unded in part by: Arlingt on Central Schoo l District; a Water a Workshop Held at the University of Massachusetts. Amherst: of Life gran t from Guinne ss PLC ; AmeriCorps; and the 1997 September 29-30, I986 . The Environmental Institute. University Project Facil itation Award of the Soc iety for Ecological of Massachusetts at Amherst, 143 pp. Re roration underwritt en by Monsanto Corp. This is Bard LINCK. M.H., DEPARI.J.A .. BUTLER,B.O. , ANDGRAHAM. T.E. 1989. College Fie ld Station - Hudsonia Contribution 74. Nesting behavior of the turtle, Emydoidea blandingii, in Massa­ chusetls. Journal of Herpetology 23(4):442-444. LITERATURE CITED MALECKJ.R.A .. BLOSSEY. B.. HIGHT. S.D.. SCHROEDER.D .. K OK. L.T .. ANDC ouLSoN. J.R. 1993. Biologicalconu ·ol of purple loo. estrife. BioScience 43( I0):680 -686. C '